Educational research and practice

In order to help explain the development of my own methodological positioning, I explore further the reasons behind the lack of mathematics education research focusing on teachers’ development of their own practice in relation to teaching mathematics for social justice. Bishop (1998) argues that business-oriented policies, and the interference of politicians in decision-making in education, have resulted in research failing to take account of mathematics teachers’ perspectives, or the situations they face in the classroom. The traditional ‘centre- periphery’ model of research relies on an initial study, showing limited concern for practice, packaged as a programme to be disseminated and implemented across schools. Much of this research is ineffective in changing classroom practice because it focuses on learning and the curriculum, and ignores institutional contexts and constraints.

There has been recent criticism, in the US and England, of educational research, particularly qualitative research, claiming it is of a poor quality, lacks relevance and is inaccessible to practitioners (Gough, 2004). This coincides with the growth of the ‘evidence-based practice’ movement, which calls for teachers to incorporate research findings into their classroom practice, and promotes systematic reviews and ‘randomised control trials’ (Oakley, 2006). An apparent reluctance of teachers to engage with research evidence is attributed to pressure of time, lack of skills necessary to access research, or to a resistance to change which is

embedded in teachers’ strongly-held beliefs and cultures (Sebba, 2004). Critics of evidence-based practice associate it with an undermining of teachers’

professionalism, through the adoption of management practices from the private sector, satisfying political demands for ‘public accountability’. They argue that, whilst some teachers may be consulted in the formulation of research questions, the majority of teachers are expected merely to implement, without question, recommendations for changes in practice, based on the conclusions of research. These recommendations are used as targets, against which teachers’ performance is measured (Hammersley, 2004). Hence, teachers’ reluctance to engage with research findings is attributed to distrust of new initiatives, which they see as promoting a political agenda or as a tacit means of monitoring performance (Thomas, 2004). Winch et al. (2013) warn against relying on the adoption of ‘what works’ protocols and argue for a greater focus on developing teachers’ capacity to critically reflect on their own practice in relation to research evidence. Cordingley (2013) highlights the importance of inquiry-oriented

practice, facilitated by external experts, in promoting effective professional development amongst teachers. She argues that engagement in collaborative inquiry, promoting dialogue and peer support, can encourage teachers to take risks and to explore, not just what works, but why things work and in which contexts. Leat et al. (2014) argue that current research is often too focussed on school effectiveness, and questions about the purpose of the curriculum and how it should be taught are often discouraged. They underline the distinction between teachers engaging ‘with’ research, as a ‘body of knowledge’, and engaging ‘in’ research, as a ‘professional learning process’ or ‘social practice’, arguing that teachers benefit greatly when they do both. Teachers report that engaging in research provides opportunities to revisit values they have lost sight of due to the demanding nature of the profession.

Leat et al. (2014) warn about the danger that a more critical understanding of education, gained through teachers engaging in research, can lead to conflict with school managers. They also highlight how teachers’ involvement is often overlooked in the reports written by

university-based researchers. Cotton (2009, p. 1) underlines how teachers’ and students’ voices are often marginalised and “allowed in only so long as they offer sound bites that sit neatly in the researcher’s preferred story”.

Graven and Lerman (2003) outline how ‘communities of practice’ are becoming increasingly popular in researching mathematics teachers’ learning as part of their professional

development. They emphasise the distinction between communities of practice in education, where the role of the teacher is central in maximising learning, from those in ‘apprenticeship’ contexts, where teaching is not considered necessary for learning to take place. Jaworski (2006) highlights the danger of applying Wenger’s (1998) ‘apprenticeship’ model to education, in which learning is conceptualised as developing identity, and a sense of belonging, through participation in a community of practice. She argues that the process of ‘alignment’, i.e. “individual members aligning themselves with conditions or characteristics of the practice” (Jaworski, 2006, p. 190), results in the perpetuation of the ‘normal desirable state’, a situation in which routines and norms are established in order to avoid conflict and aggravation. In the context of mathematics teaching, this contributes towards the reproduction of existing practice, ignoring the need for a more relevant and engaging curriculum (see Section 2.2). Jaworski (2006, p. 191) advocates the alternative model of a ‘community of inquiry’, in order to achieve ‘critical alignment’, which includes “some sense of teachers critiquing and trying to develop, improve or enhance the status quo, alongside enculturation into existing social norms”. A community of inquiry differs from a community of practice in that it encourages critical understanding, explicitly challenges the status quo, and develops meta-cognitive

awareness, leading to increased agency. Jaworski (2006) highlights how external support and stimulus, provided by university-based researchers, can be vital in establishing and sustaining communities of inquiry. Jackson and Temperley (2007) emphasise the pivotal role played by external partners in facilitating ‘networked learning communities’, which comprise teachers from a number of schools, thus building on and extending collaborative inquiry practices established in individual schools. Such external partners provide access to theory, research and practice from a knowledge base that is not constrained by institutional parameters.